Re: Parler

[Mark Seiden <mis () seiden com>]

at the risk of providing more heat than light, trump violated the
Presidential Records Act repeatedly by later taking down (aka destroying)
his own unwise  tweets. this repeated violation of law using twitter itself
would have been enough for twitter to either restrict his using any
mechanism for revision or deletion or even account termination for aup
violations. i pointed this out to them 3.91 years ago.

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 10:12 AM Matt Hoppes <
mattlists () rivervalleyinternet net> wrote:

> Is that illegal though?
>
> > On Jan 10, 2021, at 10:07 AM, sronan () ronan-online com wrote:
> >
> > Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t
> block people, because his Tweets were government communication. So has
> Twitter now blocked government communication?
> > > On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:51 AM, Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > > > On 1/10/21 5:42 AM, sronan () ronan-online com wrote:
> > > > While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they
> want for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem.
> Amazon is now in the content moderation business, which could potentially
> open them up to liability if they fail to suspend any other customer who
> hosts objectionable content.
> > > > When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by
> in-house and external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted based
> on content, less I become responsible for moderating all groups, shouldn’t
> that same principal apply to platforms like AWS and Twitter?
> > > Is it content moderation, or just giving the boot to enabling criminal
> activity? Would that more providers be given the boot for enabling voice
> spam scams, for example. Didn't one of the $n-chan's get the boot a while
> back? I don't seem to recall a lot of push back about that and it was
> pretty much the same situation, iirc.
> > > Mike